[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

The problem with the MVs is not always the method of translation used, but the selection of manuscripts on which the translation is based.

While this is very true, the underlying texts are grossly deficient, it could over-simplify the difficulties with the MV's.

1) Deficient and corrupt underlying texts (close to every version published today)

2) Inaccurate translation methodologies (e.g. dynamic equivalence and paraphrase translations)

3) Lack of Holy Spirit anointing and clarity and expression sense and language and Bible skills. Including a major pitfall, changing words simply to be different than the pure King James Bible.

#3 is also very important, I just want to be sure that it is not omitted in discussing the pitfalls of the variety of modern versions. At tmes it even leads to straightforward errors in the versions, always they produce inferior phrasing and words, while the King James Bible retains unparalled accuracy and power and purpose.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[larryb]

The KJV is very unique version in its translation method and philosophy.

They did translate word-for-word, in that they understood that the very words of God were important to convey the thoughts of God. The versions that translate thought-for-thought rely too heavily upon interpretation rather than translation, disconnecting the value of the words to define the thoughts behind them.

The reason the KJV is unique is because it does this translation without sacrificing literary style. So you have at the same time a word-for-word translation and a beautiful style and cadence in the text.

[larryb]

Another point about the KJV translation is that it was the last translation whose translators were all Confessional (at least to my knowledge).

The presumptions that translators have do make a difference, and knowing those presumptions because they are found in a Confession make it easier to check on the doctrinal purity of the translators.